{"id":8298,"date":"2018-11-14T15:51:58","date_gmt":"2018-11-14T15:51:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.naylor.com\/associationadviser\/?p=8298"},"modified":"2026-09-14T10:13:34","modified_gmt":"2026-09-14T14:13:34","slug":"the-boards-burdens-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.naylor.com\/associationadviser\/the-boards-burdens-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The Board’s Burdens: Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the third in a three-part series exploring the burdens that are (and are not) integral to board high performance. (Please read <\/em>Part 1<\/em><\/a> and <\/em>Part 2<\/em><\/a>.) In this final part of the series, I will examine how today\u2019s association boards continue to carry a burden created by their predecessors and explore what today\u2019s boards must do to eliminate that burden for their successors.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Burden of Governing Debt<\/h2>\n

For decades, far too many association boards have opted to preserve the past at the expense of the future, practice politics instead of inclusion and prioritize operations over innovation. The persistent weakening of legacy governing approaches under the unforgiving conditions of intensifying societal transformation is mostly to blame for this situation, but the scores of directors who preceded today\u2019s boards cannot escape all responsibility for creating the burden of \u201cgoverning debt\u201d that has been passed on unabated to their successors.<\/p>\n

Governing debt is the accrued constraints, disadvantages and obstacles associations encounter due to the failure of their boards over time to prepare for the future. Some governing debt takes a tangible form, including outdated policies, processes and structures that place artificial and harmful limitations on the ability of associations to adapt to disruptive shifts in the broader environment. As an intangible element of the context in which all associations operate, governing debt reinforces the influence and impact of orthodoxy, feeds inertia and undermines the future focus of board decision-making. In addition to the indirect cost of missed opportunities, by severely slowing the pace of investment in building essential capabilities including the implementation of powerful technologies, governing debt has made building the long-term thrivability of associations both far more complicated and much more expensive.<\/p>\n

Eliminating Governing Debt for Successors<\/h2>\n

Today\u2019s association boards must carry the burden of governing debt because a long line of predecessors chose to defer various difficult, possibly unpopular, and yet vital decisions that could have strengthened their organizations for the future. Many of those directors were unable to recognize and appreciate the unintended consequences of their inaction at the time because they operated within governing systems that were not designed to value foresight. While this may explain the breakdown of past stewardship, it should not excuse it. Instead, it must serve as a cautionary note to current directors who cannot credibly rationalize the continued deferral of hard choices by pleading ignorance of the profound and potentially transformative implications of the emerging challenges their associations and stakeholders are already confronting.<\/p>\n

To begin eliminating governing debt for their successors, today\u2019s boards can begin to make sense and make meaning around its deeper impact by asking three questions:<\/p>\n